User talk:Bobdatty

I cannot see your logic for changing this article from Newspaper wrapper to Wrapper (philately). This artice was about postal stationery newspaper wrappers not about wrappers in general. The first sentence now reads "In philately a wrapper is a form of postal stationery which pays the cost of the delivery of a newspaper or a periodical." - which is not correct. In philately the word wrapper is used in a variety of different ways such as - letter wrapper; parcel wrapper; bundle wrapper; weather report wrapper; book wrapper; as well as newspaper wrappers. JPKos (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having heard any on these other wrapper names used in any philatelic literature. While many people may refer to wrappers as newspaper wrappers, such wrappers can be, and have been, used for many other things than newspapers. I see no problem with the renaming. ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the previously named article (newspaper wrapper) to George Kreiger, a longtime member of the Board of the United Postal Stationery Society and expert in the field. His comment to me was direct and specific. The term used in philately is "wrapper", not "newspaper wrapper", even though its purpose was for sending newspapers and periodicals. (Bobdatty|talk) 04:49, 28 Dec 2010 (UTC)

I checked twelve of the most recently published books I have, which cover the subject of newspaper wrappers - only three used the term "wrapper" and the other nine used "newspaper wrapper". The nine books are as follows:-

2007 - Alan Huggins and Colin Baker - Collect British Postal Stationery. A Simplified Listing of British Postal Stationery 1840 to 2007

2004 - Peter Thy & John Inglefield-Watson - The Postal Stationery of the Bechuanalands and Botswana

2002 - Bernard Clancy & Otto Jung - Postal Stationery of Ireland

1998 - W J Quik & G H Jonkers - The Postal Stationery of South Africa

1992 - R D Samuel - New Zealand Postal Stationery Catalogue

1989 - The J B Catalogue of Malta Stamps and Postal History

1989 - Steven Tan - Standard Catalogue of Malaysia-Singapore-Brunei Stamps and Postal Stationery

1987 - Wilfrid T F Castle et al - Cyprus 1353-1986 History, Postal History & Postage Stamps

1983 - David MacDonnell - Stamps of Ireland

I am sure that if I was to go through my entire library I would find many more examples. I would be very interested to learn how many reference books George Kreiger consulted before he gave his opinion.JPKos (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed George again. I pointed out that all of your references dealt with British former dependencies and wondered whether we were talking over a difference between U.S. and British terminologies. In the US the two standard works are the UPSS publications "Catalog of the 19th Century Stamped Envelopes and WRAPPERS, of the U.S." and "Catalog of the 20th Century Stamped Envelopes and WRAPPERS, of the U.S.". Here is George's reply:

Most catalogs use the term wrapper to describe a stamped sheet long enough to fold around an object but not fully enclose it like an envelope. Many British wrappers carry the following admonishment: “This wrapper may only be used for Newspapers, or such documents as are allowed to be sent at the Book-rate of postage, and must not enclose any letter or communication of the nature of a letter (whether separate or otherwise). If this rule be infringed, the packet will be charged as a letter.

Thus I recommended changing the title. I have edited one book (on British East Africa by an English author) written several articles on postal stationery and edited the US Possessions catalog and use the term wrapper. If there are wrappers only to be used for newspapers then calling them Newspaper Wrappers would be correct. What do the postage rates tell you? The answer should end the discussion. Bobdatty (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of wikipedia is that all statements should be based on verifiable sources. A statement such as "Most catalogs use the term wrapper" is an opinion not a source. What does the statement "What do the postage rates tell you? The answer should end the discussion." mean - my answer to the question is newspaper (or perhaps more correctly printed paper - but this is not a term in common use for wrappers). JPKos (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you solicit George's views by asking how many references he consulted. Then after I print his response you say it's not up to Wiki standards? Give it a rest. Bobdatty (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly image placement

I see you are jamming prose between two image like this and this, which is extremely ugly, make text harder to read and is discouraged in MOS:IMAGES; which states that we should avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. I have never seen a non-ugly sandwich placement. File:HardingMemorial-Gutters.jpg really adds nothing new to the article as File:DDRsheet5and10pf1953.jpg also essentially shows the same style of gutters except there are St Andrew's Crosses in the gutter but on imperforate stamps. the other When there are too may images for the amount of prose it is suggested to queue the images on the talk page until there is sufficient prose. Just because images are available does not mean we must use them. Please remember this is an encyclopaedia so the prose is the most important. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplex cancel

Are you sure the caption you added is accurate? Was it actually misapplied? IIRC in some postal administrations it was the practice not to cancel the indicium, only adhesives. I don't know if this applied to Cuba or not. Do you have any additional information? ww2censor (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I collect Cuban postal stationary. This is the only example that I have in this time period where the killer did not cancel the indicium. Bobdatty (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that does not actually answer the question. As it stands now the implication is that the cancel is not correct and contrary to the rules. Perhaps a more NPOV caption would be better such as, "Duplex cancel, on Cuban postal stationery, that dose not obliterate the indicium" or something similar. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Se-tenant Stamp Cuba.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Se-tenant Stamp Cuba.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PuertoPrincipeProvisionalStamp.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PuertoPrincipeProvisionalStamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:UltramarSpecimen.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UltramarSpecimen.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:PostalTaxStampsCuba1941-1942.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PostalTaxStampsCuba1941-1942.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:CubanModernLetterSheet-1987.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CubanModernLetterSheet-1987.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]